Favorite Schools

Favorite Teams

Steelton says written notice is required before anyone can record, photograph council meetings

MarkisMillberrySteelton.JPG

When Markis Millberry stood and raised his cell phone to photograph Steelton Council proceedings, he was told he couldn't record meetings without first providing a written notice to the borough.
(Jim T. Ryan)

STEELTON — Markis Millberry stood up in the meeting to photograph the Steelton Borough Council prior to the swearing in of a new police officer.

Interrupting the police chief's ceremony, Council President Jeffrey Wright asked Millberry to not record it and to put away his cellphone, reminding the Steelton resident about the borough's resolution requiring prior notice in writing before meetings if anyone wants to record or photograph a meeting.

Millberry complied with Wright's request at the May 19 council meeting, but he wasn't happy about it. He wondered as to why a resident can't record a public meeting. He knew about the rule, but didn't know if council would enforce it, Millberry said.

"My thoughts on this are these new rules are just keeping the public not informed," he said. "It just says they don't want the public to be informed of meetings and what's going on."

Steelton passed the resolution at its April 21 meeting. The three-page document, which primarily deals with order, conduct and disturbances at public meetings, was necessary following council sessions where public outbursts prevented the meeting from proceeding, Wright said.

"We passed this to maintain order," he said.

Outrage over water quality

On April 7, residents attended a meeting in large numbers following revelations that improper purifying procedures were used at the water authority's treatment facility. The residents had concerns, but council tried to explain it would have to take them before the separate water authority, Wright said.

The meeting was so unruly that Wright said he had to end it early because nothing could move forward. Residents were arguing with council members, disrupting the proceedings and generally wouldn't listen to council's repeated notices that the water authority, not the borough, could address their concerns. He's been on borough council for more than 16 years and that was a first for him.

"That was the only time on council it was out of control," he said.

Millberry said council members were arguing with the public as well.

"I'm going to say both parties got out of control," he said. "The residents aren't the only people that have to be respectful."

New rules for conduct

The discord was the impetus for the new rules, which include:

Limits to protest sign sizes to prevent obstructing the view of other attendees.

Silencing of cellphone ringers and notifications to prevent disturbances.

Setting two public comment times, one at the beginning and another toward the end of meetings.

Providing for the removal of people who make offensive, threatening or obscene remarks.

Limiting public comment to less than five minutes per individual.

However, the last section of the rules requires anyone recording or photographing to make a general announcement in the meeting before doing so. It requires notice in writing prior to a meeting to record video and audio or photograph, including the name of person and address, recording device description, and acknowledgment that the operator will abide by the ordinance.

One of the provisions even prohibits any recording devices to be operated prior to a meeting being called to order, during a recess and after its adjourned, according to the resolution.

Possible Sunshine Act violation

The provisions, particularly the ones that require prior notifications, seem to fly in the face of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act and the law's intent to provide for open, public meetings and the public's right to document them, said Melissa Melewsky, legal counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association.

"Sometimes [such ordinances are] an effort to address expectations of privacy," she said, "but there is no expectation of privacy at public meetings."

Anyone can video and audio record public meetings, Melewsky said, and even if an agency creates policies and rules to maintain order, it can't use them to limit or prevent residents from video and audio recording meetings. That includes prior notices, she said.

"The only thing it does is put up an administrative barrier," Melewsky said.

The General Assembly has been clear on public meetings, the right to attend them and document them in the Sunshine Act, she said.

She couldn't say how many governments and agencies have such rules, but in every case she's seen, it usually represents a misunderstanding of the law.

"It happens from time to time," she said, "and the agency eventually reverses opinion."

On open meetings

The full text of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act can be found at the Legislature's website, under the chapter titled "Open Meetings." It does allow for policies governing orderly recording of meetings, but specifically guarantees the right of residents to record a meeting.

The Sunshine Act includes penalties for any member of an agency found to be violating the law for open meetings, Melewsky said. A first offense can carry the cost of prosecution and a fine of between $100 and $1,000, according to the law. A second offense carries a fine of between $200 and $2,000.

"We can adopt reasonable rules for recording devices," David Wion, the borough's solicitor.

He said Steelton's resolution does just that so that those using any recording device do not become a distraction or disruption to the council meeting.

When Millberry was asked to stop, he was just asked to identify himself and was notified that the borough has rules about proper procedure for recording, after that it wasn't a problem, Wion said.

In addition, he said, council just wants to know who is attending and what they are recording.

"The law permits it, and that's why we did it," Wion said.

To Millberry's knowledge, he's the first person council has asked to stop recording at a meeting. He said he appreciated that Wright didn't move to eject him from the meeting or confiscate his cellphone, per the rules.

He said he just doesn't think its right for council to be setting up hurdles to transparency, especially considering Steelton's residents have so many questions about how their government operates.

"It's kind of hard," Millberry said. "Residents don't get enough information. We have questions, just not answers."

Related Stories

Featured Story

Get 'Today's Front Page' in your inbox

This newsletter is sent every morning at 6 a.m. and includes the morning's top stories, a full list of obituaries, links to comics and puzzles and the most recent news, sports and entertainment headlines.

optionalCheck here if you do not want to receive additional email offers and information.See our privacy policy

Thank you for signing up for 'Today's Front Page'

To view and subscribe to any of our other newsletters, please click here.